Maya City Of Bountiful

[chonguey]

Is this or is this not evidence that the Book of Mormon is an actual historical document?

Yes or no.

No. It is a parallel, but a trivial one. First of all, the original word in Nephite language (whatever that may be) for the name of the Book of Mormon's "Bountiful" is unknown. The correlation we see is one that happens after the original Book of Mormon and the Mayan name have both been translated in to English. But Bountiful, or places based on the idea "bounty" are common, all over the world and are part of many of earths many civilizations and cultures. It would be unreasonable to expect that these parallels wouldn't happen all over the place, even if the English translations of two unrelated places both come out to be "Bountiful."

Had the name found been one that was based on a Book of Mormon name rather than a universally expressed human idea than the correlation would be non-trivial. If the name discovered was Zarahemla or Mormon or Nephi or some other "direct hit" name, it would carry greater weight. But this is not the case at all. "Bountiful" is not that kind of unique, one-in-a-million-chance name. The concept of a place called "Bountiful" exists in many languages and in many places all over the earth.

In other words, it is no more reasonable to assume that the "Bountiful" in the OP is the Bountiful of the Book of Mormon any more than assuming the "Bountiful" north of Salt Lake City is the same and the Book of Mormon's "Bountiful."

To make the connection between the OP and the BOM shows a lot of desire to believe and wishful thinking, but is hardly any where close to being conclusive evidence of any of the Book of Mormon's claims.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

That's easy.

Mola Ram Suda Ram.

I'm surprised you didn't know that!

Yeah I suppose your right. Remember Im a simple minded folk.

[consiglieri]

No. It is a parallel, but a trivial one.

You have just lost all credibility.

Nice work. I knew you could do it.

--Consiglieri

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

You have just lost all credibility.

Nice work. I knew you could do it.

--Consiglieri

Lol. I see this is so. What to do now?

[Muc'ul Ajwalil]

Interesting parallel, but I have a few thoughts:

The Mayan civilization peaked during 300 A.D. to 900 A.D. during relative peace and no record of a genocide during that time. The Mayan people that are extant today show purely Asiatic DNA and biological markers. This is a well documented fact and the time frame is accurate. Their civilization collapsed only after the arrival of the Spanish.

However, during or around this time the civilization that is portrayed in the Book of Mormon, suffered a genocide where a standing army of 100,000 individuals were slaughtered, and possibly thousands more that were not counted. No evidence of such a genocide during the time frame exists. Ritualized human sacrifice yes, but not in those numbers and not during that time period.

In my mind that makes it hard to reconcile that the civilization science and archeology call the Maya is the same as the Nephite/Lamanite civilization in the Book of Mormon. The archaeological and written record for the Maya don't line up at all during the same time periods, nor show a hint of semitic or Egyptological influence, let alone a religion that has any ethical or ideological connection to Judeo-Christianity/Mormonism. It is off by over a 1000 years, and even then the details don't match.

This is a lethal problem trying to shoehorn the Maya in to the Book of Mormon: the time frame can't budge due to the internal chronology of the Book of Mormon. It has to end at 400 A.D., not 1600 A.D. It has to end roughly 400 A.D. to line up with the internal Biblical chronology, not to mention the whole Gregorian calendar system we use today.

The Maya aren't the Nephites/Lamanites.

Ah! Someone wants to have his arguments nuked, piece by piece!

Argument 1...the Maya civilization did indeed peak at that time, the Classical Maya Civilization...and the new National Geographic confirms that assumption, as well as most of the ruins...but there were other civilizations too...in the Preclassic time too, and there are Preclassic ruins too.

Now I served down there in my mission...not in GUA, but in Chiapas and Tabasco states, which neighbor Guatemala to the west. The people down there don't even resemble Asians, the pure Maya/Tzeltal/Tzotsil, name the tribe. The Lacandons are very unique in being light skinned. All have Semitic style faces and noses (high set). Their complexion is nearly black (or white for the Lacandon).

The national geographic issue for August had a guy called Fire is Born spearheading an imperialistic campaign with allies from Teotihuacan...the Tzeltal Maya name for this guy is C'ahc Ayinon, very similar to the Aaron in the Book of Mormon.

The Lamanites did not cease to exist in 400 AD, but exist to this day. And those that accept the gospel are enjoying rich blessings...

[Muc'ul Ajwalil]

No. It is a parallel, but a trivial one. First of all, the original word in Nephite language (whatever that may be) for the name of the Book of Mormon's "Bountiful" is unknown. The correlation we see is one that happens after the original Book of Mormon and the Mayan name have both been translated in to English. But Bountiful, or places based on the idea "bounty" are common, all over the world and are part of many of earths many civilizations and cultures. It would be unreasonable to expect that these parallels wouldn't happen all over the place, even if the English translations of two unrelated places both come out to be "Bountiful."

Had the name found been one that was based on a Book of Mormon name rather than a universally expressed human idea than the correlation would be non-trivial. If the name discovered was Zarahemla or Mormon or Nephi or some other "direct hit" name, it would carry greater weight. But this is not the case at all. "Bountiful" is not that kind of unique, one-in-a-million-chance name. The concept of a place called "Bountiful" exists in many languages and in many places all over the earth.

In other words, it is no more reasonable to assume that the "Bountiful" in the OP is the Bountiful of the Book of Mormon any more than assuming the "Bountiful" north of Salt Lake City is the same and the Book of Mormon's "Bountiful."

To make the connection between the OP and the BOM shows a lot of desire to believe and wishful thinking, but is hardly any where close to being conclusive evidence of any of the Book of Mormon's claims.

We don't know where Bountiful, nor Zarahemla, nor many places are in the Book of Mormon...but then again only five percent of the Mesoamerican ruins have been uncovered...Don't be so quick to judge...if it were my guess...based on where I have been, Bountiful could be anywhere from eastern Chiapas/Tabasco to Peten, including the AZ of Tikal.

Desolation has been found in the Nahua language...there is a ruin called Mitla, from Nahuatl Miatlan which translates desolated place. It is located in Oaxaca state near the city of Oaxaca and the ruin of Monte Alban.

[T-Shirt]

Kinda intersting here. What would be the nephite word for "earthquake" if it wasnt translated into english?

Well, according to the book from the OP, the word for "earthquake" is "Kab'raqan"

T-Shirt

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Well, according to the book from the OP, the word for "earthquake" is "Kab'raqan"

T-Shirt

Yes I know I think I was thinking of something else. Oh well. I guess then are we claiming that this langauge is Nephite?

[Muc'ul Ajwalil]

Yes I know I think I was thinking of something else. Oh well. I guess then are we claiming that this langauge is Nephite?

Anyone with a working knowledge of Hebrew could answer that question...unfortunately I am Mu'cul Ajwalil...I am not Nephilimelech.

[T-Shirt]

Yes I know I think I was thinking of something else. Oh well. I guess then are we claiming that this langauge is Nephite?

No, I just didn't know if you had seen the reference in the book. I have no idea what the Nephite word for earthquake would be.

T-Shirt

[chonguey]

Desolation has been found in the Nahua language...there is a ruin called Mitla, from Nahuatl Miatlan which translates desolated place. It is located in Oaxaca state near the city of Oaxaca and the ruin of Monte Alban.

Your point of bringing up "Desolation" as another positive "hit" for the Book of Mormon simply demonstrates in my favor the difference between trivial and non-trivial place name correlations. Like "Bountiful", "Desolation" is a name that means a very generalized human idea that exists in all languages, with many places in the world being referred to as "Desolation" in the native or foreign tongue.

That this is the best "positive hit" for BoM geography (if one subscribes to the LGT) that you can mention, it proves two points.

- The only evidence that exists in support of the BoM is of the trivial. They are the type of arguments that on their own, could apply to any number of generic ruined civilizations, both in the mesoamericas, but also in the world at large. They are the type of evidences that can never be the smoking gun. A correlating place called "Desolation" is this kind of trivial correlation. So is Bountiful. So is NHM in Arabia. Even the most honest apologist has to admit that the best one can say about such correlations is "could be."

- There is no non-trivial evidences for the BoM that are found to be verifiably ancient and authentic. This would be a Mayan stone tablet that translated accurately would contain some text of the Book of Mormon, or the name Zarahemla on a ruin, or the stone box in the Hill Cummorah, the Sword of Laban or the Liahona. That there are no hard "smoking-gun" evidences that support the history and civilization portrayed in the Book of Mormon. The conversation we might be having would be very different if any of these types of evidences were extant, but they are not.

[livy111us]

NHM is trivial? Who are you?! Have you read anything on the subject? I agree with a previous poster, you've lost credibility with me as well.

You at least have somewhat of a point on generic names (somewhat), but then you have to go over the edge. Sigh...

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

That this is the best "positive hit" for BoM geography (if one subscribes to the LGT) that you can mention, it proves two points.

- The only evidence that exists in support of the BoM is of the trivial.

I guess any evidence is trivial. Im glad to see you have a "special" definition.

[Avatar4321]

So the Book of Mormon accurately predicts NHM and a place that fits the description of Bountiful in Arabia, a place called desolation in Mesoamerica and a place called Bountiful in Mayan and these are all trivial?

[why me]

I think that most evidence for the book of mormon will be classified as 'trivial'. Imagine for a moment a direct hit for the book of mormon? What would that mean for the world? The meaning implied would be that god lives and that he exists. Faith would fly out the window and be replaced with certainty. And I don't think that this can happen. And so, evidence will be classified as trivial, requiring faith, belief and hope.

[Anijen]

Bountiful is trivial because it is a condition not a name?

Desolation is trivial because (see above).

NHM is trivial...

Chonguey you are moving the goal posts.

[consiglieri]

Bountiful is trivial because it is a condition not a name?

Desolation is trivial because (see above).

NHM is trivial...

Chonguey you are moving the goal posts.

Not only is he moving the goal posts, he is arguing without evidence.

There are "many" places in the world named "Bountiful"? And where would these places be? Chuey wants to use Utah's Bountiful as an example, but that obviously does not work, because it was intentionally based upon the BOM Bountiful. So where are all these other places in the world named "Bountiful"?

And where are all these other places in the world named "Desolation"? I know there was a Stephen King Book that had a town named "Desolation," and it was one of the last good books King wrote, but I mean in real life; not in a horror novel.

If the argument is going to be made that these connections are trivial because places named Bountiful and Desolation are crammed into the World Atlas, I think some evidence for that proposition would be helpful.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[chonguey]

Not only is he moving the goal posts, he is arguing without evidence.

Says the apologist.

There are "many" places in the world named "Bountiful"? And where would these places be? Chuey wants to use Utah's Bountiful as an example, but that obviously does not work, because it was intentionally based upon the BOM Bountiful. So where are all these other places in the world named "Bountiful"?

And where are all these other places in the world named "Desolation"? I know there was a Stephen King Book that had a town named "Desolation," and it was one of the last good books King wrote, but I mean in real life; not in a horror novel.

You seem to be trying to either be purposefully naive or deliberately stubborn. Surely you have to understand why finding a city that was translated from the Mayan language into English as Bountiful or Desolation doesn't hold the same empirical weight as something more specific, like say finding two places that were translated in to English as Zarahemla or Adam-ondi-Ohman. These aren't simply descriptors of an ecology that would exist in all languages.

Surely you aren't suggesting that it would be unreasonable to expect that all the hundreds of thousands of language dialects would have words expressing the ecological condition of "Bountiful"or "Desolation" and have areas or towns around where that language evolved that were referred to as such? I mean, even the casual observer, one who is not trained in how to scientifically quantify evidences, can see that names like Desolation or Bountiful are not unique only to the Book of Mormon and Mayan civilizations, and thusly can be interpreted as being the exact same places. That is a huge assumption that is totally unwarranted. The simpler explanation is that since these are common concept words, these correlations are to be expected and that's why examples have been found and are used in LDS apologetics: They're the kind of names that are statistically likely to be all over the place and are easily cherry-picked.

If the argument is going to be made that these connections are trivial because places named Bountiful and Desolation are crammed into the World Atlas, I think some evidence for that proposition would be helpful.

I think that if any person reading this pops open a browser and does a Google, Google Maps (or even better, Google Earth) search, you will see you get many hits for Desolation and Bountiful as place names. But while we are at it we also need to take in to consideration names from the point of view other than English. We can't just use an English-centric search method! You also need to look up the appropriate concept words in every known language and extinct ones too!. And while you are at it, why not look using Reformed Egyptian and the Deseret alphabet?

But naw.... The whole OP Mayan/BoM "Bountiful" connection has to be right. There just isn't any other explanation or possibly flawed logic in such an argument! It's bullet-proof!

Now, as far as NHM goes, it is a step up from place name correlations like "Bountiful" or "Desolation." Nahom is not an abstract concept word rendered in English. It is at least a proper noun, or can be inferred to likely be such since a qualifying definition is non-existant in the BoM text like there is for say, Deseret being honeybees.

However since NHM only might be rendered as Nahom, and not always as Nahom, plus a whole bunch of other assumptions about geography, etc that have to be assumed as true, but may not be, it still isn't a non-trivial evidence. There are still too many unknowns in the "NHM is Nahom" theory that again, to declare or assume it to be 100% proof positive is evidentially irresponsible. That's why the NHM theory is firmly rooted in apologetics, not archeology: the empirical evidences aren't sufficient to make a positive match, let alone that the BoM is a historical document and that Nahom is real place to begin with.

NHM is trivial? Who are you?! Have you read anything on the subject? I agree with a previous poster, you've lost credibility with me as well.

You at least have somewhat of a point on generic names (somewhat), but then you have to go over the edge. Sigh...

You have a funny concept as to what intellectual credibility consists of. Jumping to conclusions because it shores up beleaguered beliefs isn't the way to responsibly (or logically!) interpret empirical evidences.

And as a response to why I have read the Book of Mormon 11 times: Well, a Latter-Day Saint should diligently study his scriptures, no? I read it 4 times in English on my mission, plus another two times in Spanish. I have the dates marked for those, plus 5 additional completions in the margins of my English and Spanish triple combinations. And no, I wasn't trying to prove it wrong. Each time I was trying to prove to myself that it was right.

[livy111us]

You and Johnny should get together sometime. You both seem to have the inability to reason, no matter what evidence is provided.

[poulsenll]

I think that if any person reading this pops open a browser and does a Google, Google Maps (or even better, Google Earth) search, you will see you get many hits for Desolation and Bountiful as place names.

Did you do the search? Setting aside the need to do all languages, let us just do the English search. I did on Google and got over 2 million hits for the word bountiful. On the first several pages, the only ones referring to a city or town were to Bountiful, Utah. Using Google Earth, I got one and only one hit. Bountiful, Utah. Using "desolation" with Google Earth, the only hits were for locations in Utah, obviously named based on the Book of Mormon. Surely if you were right, that these should be common names for a city or town, then there should have been at least a few in the English language. Maybe you should spend some time looking through the 2 million hits in Google to support your point otherwise dont continue to make unsubstantiated conclusions. It does nothing for your credibility.

If you dont want to believe the BofM is a real historic document, that is your privelege but dont try to dissuade others with such weak arguments.

Larry P

[poulsenll]

An ancient Mayan text mentions a city named Bountiful?

Is this or is this not evidence that the Book of Mormon is an actual historical document?

Yes or no.

--Consiglieri

When I first read the OP, my response was "So what?" but after investigating Chonguey's assertion that it should be a common occurence, my own assumtion at the time, it appears to not be common and may therefore be a valid connection in support of the Book of Mormon.

After all, when I look up Riverdide on Google Earth, I get ten cities in ten different states. There is only one for bountiful and that is in Utah and is known to be named after the BofM Bountiful.

Larry P

[livy111us]

There goes Chongueys argument right out the window. But I'm sure he'll ignore it and come up with something else.

[chonguey]

There goes Chongueys argument right out the window. But I'm sure he'll ignore it and come up with something else.

Hardly. The search results from Google support my thesis, but it seems people here suffer from a culturally justifiable slip of logic that stems from a Mormon-centric worldview.

Yes, the Bountiful in North Central Utah is derived from the Book of Mormon, as are the many places and nature destinations in the state of Utah that bear the name Desolation (Desolation Trailhead, Desolation Pass, Desolation Canyon)

These names stem from Utah's strong Mormon influence. However, I don't think any LDS apologist would try to push the notion that Utah's Bountiful is the historic BoM Bountiful, simply because the name corresponds. Most logical people can see what would be on obvious logical fallacy. Clearly the BoM's "Bountiful" and "Desolation" aren't in Utah. They aren't the same place, even though they have the same name.

You might want to dismiss this as somehow irrelevant to the discussion, but it isn't. It's the very sort of non-correlation of location but correlation in name that I am attempting to get across with my argument.

And again, simply because there aren't any non--LDS related "Desolations" or "Bountifuls" in the English language, does not automatically mean that the non-English "desolations" or "bountifuls" are as easily dismissed. We are dealing with an issue of translation here, Mayan-to-English, so the linguistic and translation nature is what is important.

People here are acting like this linguistic argument I am making against the supposed "Bountiful" connection is the only thing that precludes the LDS apologists from co-opting Mayan culture and history and recycling it to the credulous.

Name correlation based on generic ecological conditions is the least of the LDS Apologists problems when trying to co-opt the Mayans in to the BoM lore. The civilization of the Nephites/Lamanites and its descendants would have left certain archeological markers. All of the things mentioned in the Book of Mormons about the crops they grew and the animals they had.

These are the known hard facts about Mayan Culture. These are not really in dispute about the Mayans in particular. Some of the below have been located thousands of miles away in extremely distant parts of the Americas are often trotted out as "evidence" for LDS apologetics, but keep in mind we are examining a geographically isolated culture, where ecologies thousands of miles away have negligible impact on the kind of culture and day-in day-out lives the ancient Mayans had.

- Their religion is fairly well understood, and bears no idealogical connection or ideological roots with Christianity/Mormonism

- The didn't have horse-drawn chariots, as mentioned in the Book of the Mormon.

- They didn't have horses at all, as mentioned in the Book of Mormon.

- They didn't have goats, or wild goats, as mentioned in the Book of Mormon.

- They didn't have pigs, etc

- They didn't posses steel smelting or ocean-going ship building abilities, etc

- The didn't grow oats, barley, wheat or other old-world grains. They did grow squash, beans, potatoes, chiles and tomatoes, all genuine new-world crops, none of which are mentioned in the Book of Mormon.

- They didn't poseess a language with Hebraic or Semetic roots.

- They didn't write in a way that resembled those languages, or the Anthon parchment with the nonsense scribbles.

- They did posses a wide array of deep mathematical and astronomical skills, neither or which are mentioned in the Book of Mormon, or match-up with the supposedly "inspired" Abrahamic astronomy portrayed in The Book of Abraham.

The dissimilarities go on and on. A simple translational similarity for the word "Bountiful" doesn't make any of these solid dissimilarities go away. It doesn't make it magically all fit.

As an amateur enthusiast of archeology and anthropology I have explored the Mayan ruins of Tulum and Chichen Itza. I have stood on the edge of the great sacred cenote (sinkhole) where the sacrificial victims were entombed with golden treasure in the murky waters hundreds of feet below. I have visited various other smaller sites in the lower part of Mexico. To visit these sites, and to understand the real Mayan culture is to truly understand how dissimilar the two cultures have to be. In my mind, the continued portrayal of the Mayan and other indigenous peoples in LDS "folklore" and co-opting other peoples in to the Mormon religious mythology is a morally dubious practice in light of the archeological evidence clearly demonstrating the extremely strong unlikelihood of the Mayans being Lamanite descendants..

And substance and argument-free posts of self-righteous gloating are really unbecoming, livy111us.

[The Dude]

Hey, there's also a town called Bountiful in Canada.

Wikipedia:

The settlement of Bountiful is located in the Creston Valley of southeastern British Columbia, Canada, near Cranbrook and Creston. The closest community is Lister, British Columbia.

Bountiful's community is made up of members of a polygamist group. The polygamists live in a commune style compound outside of Lister. The settlement is named after Bountiful in the Book of Mormon.

So there's a Mayan city calld Pan Cha'lib'. Who decided the correct English translation was "Bountiful"? Based on internet search, Bountiful is a really unnusual name for a city (unless it was founded by Latter-Day Saints). I wonder if that's really the "best" interpretation.

[livy111us]

WOW, you've been to 2 ruins!!! You MUST be an expert. I would ignore everything that Brant Gardner says, who actually IS an expert, as well as John Sorenson and the other experts, because you've been there. WOW!!!!

There have been dozens and dozens discoveries and parallels found between mesoamerican cultures, all which you ignore. There have been ample answers to your criticisms, or the criticisms you've copied from other anti-Mormons, which you also ignore. If Zarahemla were to be found tomorrow, you'd try to explain that it was a very common name among groups of people and means nothing. Evidence means nothing to you, because no matter how much there is, you will always find a back door escape. If you were truly interested in learning, there is plenty of material out there. But, that would mean you would have to ignore even more information. So, good luck with that!